MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Teacher on Leave After Questioning Whether School Would Let Pro-Life Students Walk Out, Too

"Would that be allowed by the administration?"

BenzelScreenshot via CBSRocklin High School in Rocklin, California, placed a teacher on paid administrative leave after she let students discuss the politics of the National School Walkout, which took place around the country yesterday morning.

Julianne Benzel told CBS13 that she suspects she got in trouble for suggesting that schools administrators who condoned the student walkout might be practicing a double standard.

"And so I just kind of used the example which I know it's really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time," said Benzel. "[If] a group of students nationwide, or even locally, decided 'I want to walk out of school for 17 minutes' and go in the quad area and protest abortion, would that be allowed by our administration?"

Her students saw her point, and the discussion—which took place last week—was fruitful, according to Benzel. But on Wednesday, the teacher received a call that she had been placed on leave.

Officials did not specify what the problem was, but offered the following statement:

A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities.

Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day, and letting them peacefully protest gun violence seemed like the right call to me. But if it's OK to protest, it should also be OK to have a discussion about the protest. As long as no student was unjustly disciplined for political speech, it seems to me like there's little reason for parents to complain or for Benzel to be in trouble.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via CBS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The undertaker did a great job on her. I'm not sure about the decision to pin the eyes open though.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Would cold pack.

  • John||

    Her looks definitely justify how she is being treated. Thanks for the thoughtful point there Hugh.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Says John The Feminist.

  • John||

    She looks like a bitter clinger. I am just sharing you and Hugh's joy at the party finally dealing with her. Is that so wrong?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    She looks like a bitter clinger

    I know!

  • John||

    She can cling all over you.

  • DiegoF||

    Er, don't know about Crusty, but this pretty little raven (do they come in brown?) will probably not be hanging out at the bird bandstand with any Rocklin Robins any time soon.

    Don't see what is so remarkably ghoulish about her looks, though. Looks pretty ordinary to me. A little washed out from the mobile-unit lighting, as people often are on news cameras, maybe.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Have to agree with your take; like any of these guys could do any better...

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    He practiced on her before Pelosi.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The culture war is lit af rn.

  • BYODB||

    Kids only have 'free expression' rights when they agree with the administrators that are pulling the strings, obviously.


    They are Schrödinger's Children, simultaneously adults with important idea's and children with no grasp of politics depending on who is standing on top of them to make a point.

  • silver.||

    "simultaneously adults with important idea's and children with no grasp of politics depending on who is standing on top of them..."

    And this definitely won't entitle them to behave the same way in actual adulthood.

    They surely won't become snowflakes.

  • DiegoF||

    Maybe the joke really is on us! We say, dumb kids wait until they get off campus into the real world where rugged sorts like us prosper and are in our element; but look at the direction corporate culture is going! Here as in the UK, where it is more advanced, the prog elite have taken to crowing ever more openly about how their agenda is taking over among the rich and powerful who are destined to take over the world, leaving the inferiors to stew in their contemptible plebeian misery that will earn no mercy from their betters. Hillary is no anomaly, really.

  • shawn_dude||

    LOL.

    a) we don't know why this teacher was reprimanded. It's not in the article.
    b) we don't know if the school would or would not treat other protests similarly because there haven't been other protests.

    But sure, go ahead and assume whatever is required to meet your pre-conceived beef with the school administration.

  • Sevo||

    Aw, dude, did the suggestion that the school's run by hypocrites get your pants in a wad?
    Poor little dude...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Based on Shawn's precious commentary, he would NEVER acknowledge progressive wrongdoing, ever. Nor would he advocate a progressive ever being held accountable for any negative outcomes of any kind.

  • Sevo||

    Shawn is our newest lefty asshole; presume assholyish posts.

  • Al Bendova||

    "There haven't been other protests." And I'm betting there won't be any.

    This is what you get when you question the Hypocrites in charge and the Hitler Youth.

  • Rigelsen||

    Weird that you can write without being able to read. Are you a copy/paste bot? Russian maybe?

  • John||

    Hey, the school was just answering her question. If even mentioning doing that gets you suspended, then actually protesting for an unapproved cause will likely get you expelled, fired or if they can figure out a way to do it, thrown in jail.

    Even if you think that students should have the right to walk out of class and protest without any consequences, anyone who thought that such a rule would not be selectively enforced to advance leftist causes and punish all other causes was fooling themselves. No students will ever be allowed to walk out to protest for anything other than a leftist cause.

  • Microaggressor||

    Stalin would be proud.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Right out of his playbook.

  • shawn_dude||

    totally! The school is acting like a guy that slaughtered thousands of his own citizens in order to wield power.

    Godwin would be proud!

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Did you just extend Godwin's Law to Stalin?

    Their basis of suspicion isn't unfounded. Name one walkout that was not easily identified as leftist. Now, check how many of those were proposed as organic, children led events but were in reality led by major leftist organizations.

    Now me, my contention is that protesting on your own time shows much more conviction. However, everyone knows that those brilliant kids that should replace everyone else as voters would claim they are just too busy (read: disinterested) in such encumbrances.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're wasting your time on Shawn, he does not argue in good faith.

  • James Pollock||

    "Name one walkout that was not easily identified as leftist."

    Easy. At one of the public schools I attended, every deer-hunting season, the school population drops by around a third.

  • hello.||

    No one compared the school's policies to the mass murder carried out by the Stalin regime. They compared them to Stalinist policies regarding public education and censorship. It's not their fault you are too stupid to comprehend the construction.

  • Sevo||

    shawn-dude is our newest lefty asshole, here to tell us how we are not libertarian, as the asshole shawn-dude knows exactly what that means and is more than happy to tell us.
    Right, shawn-dude asshole?

  • Fancylad||

    Is shawn_dude our latest Media Matters fifty-center?
    What's going to happen to poor Tony?
    Is he up for retirement?
    These are important questions.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Alcibiades||

    This whole walkout protest is totally political speech and the schools should have remained completely viewpoint neutral.
    You want to leave class for a protest walkout? Then get your parents permission, otherwise it's going to be classed as an unexcused absence.

  • John||

    Yes. But what they did was organize it and let the teachers and class SJW stooges bully all of the students into participating and now are making it clear that no one should get any ideas that this means protests are allowed unless they are for approved leftist causes.

  • Alcibiades||

    For sure that's what happened and will continue to happen.
    Some schools were telling parents they could "opt out".
    Opt out? So the school is saying you can opt out of a planned school event!!

  • ||

    So the school is saying you can opt out of a planned school event!!

    As long as it's much, much less than 180 days in a year and you still pay for the school to run 180 days a year, sure.

  • Alcibiades||

    But the school clearly regarded the walkout as an official "school event" a parent could "opt-out" of. They should have remained, totally, 100% agnostic over the whole thing. Like prayer in school, it's gotta be completely student led and non-disruptive.

  • DiegoF||

    Students do not interrupt class to pray. If a student's religion obligates prayer or other obligation at a particular time or date, districts have to accommodate that. But not for ordinary prayer you could do at any time. And this is not even a religious matter at all.

    Teachers can excuse a walkout, as they did, but they are not obligated to. And, as I and others kept ranting on about yesterday, everybody (including most libertarian sources) kept acting as though it was at least commendable, doubleplus pro-free speech, if they did so; whereas it actually seemed a way better policy from a speech perspective that they would not. Only now have people apparently discovered the rather obvious hypothetical of the pro-life walkout.

  • Alcibiades||

    There was also some egging on in social media of students in schools that weren't taking part to participate for really "super plus bonus protest points".

  • John||

    Isn't objecting to the protest and not wanting your students to spend time that is supposed to be devoted to the class you are teaching speech too?

  • Alcibiades||

    You mean praying in class?

  • sparkstable||

    As a teacher I would have held class and counted everyone gone absent. I would have taught class and offered no extra time of my own to catch you up (I publish everything online for my students anyhow for other absences).

    If my kids asked me why I would have told them straight up. And if any asked if we could go counter protest I would have told them sure... but you'll be absent.

    I took a job to teach my subject. Not to teach social activism or that emotions mean a damn thing. So that's just what I would have done.

    If my boss asked questions I would told him what-for right then and there.

    Luckily it's spring break.

  • Headache||

    Who has more power NEA or NRA?

  • Headache||

    do over: Who has more political power NEA or NRA?

  • ||

    And, my overall point being, when we clarify "opt out", it's in no way related to the lay conventional notion of "opting out", kinda like "budget cut".

    Even with the parent's permission and the kid wholly absent from whatever event; unless the school somehow rented a private venue without using public money, the building or parking lot the protest is being held on is taxpayer money that pretty much nobody, even without kids, can opt out of.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It isn't LIKE prayer in school. It IS prayer in school. This is how,the progressive orthodoxy praysamd congregates, through rallys and protests. This is absolutely practice of a religion as a school event.

  • mamabug||

    My son's school didn't even notify parents about it until after it was over, mooting the need for us to give permission to participate. They didn't want an actual walkout so they had students walk to the gym for a 'student-led' assembly and then returned to class 20 minutes later.

    I got three messages (two emails, one voice) from the school where mostly they reassured us how the kids were completely safe the whole time. Sooooooo not the thing that concerns me about this.

  • Sevo||

    "My son's school didn't even notify parents about it until after it was over, mooting the need for us to give permission to participate."

    My barber (Vietnamese) has a kid in grammar school. On Nov. 10, 2016, the teachers took their entire classes out to "resist" Trump.
    She found out about it when the kid came home; I think he was in 4th grade at the time. He asked what it was about.
    Some "Kids' Protest".
    Some slimy, lefty scumbags slopping at the public trough.

  • Finrod||

    Completely safe, unless you're worried about idiot leftists doing their best to make your kid an idiot leftist too.

  • Jerryskids||

    Some things it is definitely not ok to even joke about. These are the things that need mocked and ridiculed the most.

  • KevinP||

    The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I just like to think of anyone who identifies as a Republican or a Democrat as a fascist.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Lotta this. And anyone how identifies as progressive I think of as affirmed Stormtroopers.

  • silver.||

    Stormtroopers probably shoot better...

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    And make fewer shrill, triggered, and woke admonitions.

  • John||

    A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities.

    How hideous and terrifying those parents must be.

  • The_Hoser||

    Not to mention how many babies they had murdered before they got to a point where they felt having a child wouldn't fuck with their lifestyles and let one out alive.

  • Headache||

    What happened is the parents knocked over the bong, got pissed and had to bitch about something.

  • Brandybuck||

    Rocklin is a bedroom community for Sacramento. It goes without saying that the affluent in that town are hyper-progressive nitwits working for the government.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    But you would be wrong. Rocklin is well over 50% registered Republican in a region and a state which is overwhelmingly Democratic. People in Rocklin are there because they've fled Sacramento.

  • Rhywun||

    I notice now the population has almost tripled since 1990. You're probably right.

  • StackOfCoins||

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Terrible example. Protesting in favor of common sense gun safety is completely different from protesting in favor of making The Handmaid's Tale a reality. Furthermore, abortion rights are guaranteed by the Constitution whereas gun rights are not. Hopefully some of the students in the discussion pointed this out.

  • John||

    C+ spoof. Not great but better than your usual fair.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Gun rights...are not guaranteed by the Constitution." Did you actually post that, or am I having an ocular stroke?

  • silver.||

    Not subtle enough.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I think he realized that his more subtle posts get mistaken as being genuine. Once he gets so many "real" responses it's time to up the satire.

  • silver.||

    I personally like seeing newbs triggered by his nonsense. It's a rite of passage.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Yea, but I'm not a newb. I just have a hard enough time keeping up with all the Proggie fuckos that infest this forum like Tony, Buttplug, Reverand Asswipe etc. It may actually sink in this time for me that OBL is a satirist...

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's not just the new folk, though! OBL is constantly catching people who you'd really expect to know better. It's kind of depressing at times.

    On the other hand, Rev. Kirkland says almost exactly the same things but seems to mean it, so what do i know about humanity.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Vaelyn||

    I thought OBL was gunned down by SEALs in Abottabad...

  • Red Tony||

    Kirkland's disdain somehow comes off as more heartfelt.

  • Vaelyn||

    I thought OBL was gunned down by SEALs in Abottabad.

  • Sevo||

    Only once, though...

  • ||

    Well said, Tony.

  • Ecoli||

    I like your style, OBL. However, this one is a little too obvious.

    Never the less, keep up the good work.

  • ||

    Hahaha you're just all kinds of stupid.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Or a really obvious parody. Jesus.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    That's more fun to read when you read it as staying he is parodying Jesus.

  • Vaelyn||

    Or CX thinks nrob is Jesus.

  • TxJack 112||

    What? I think you have the issues backwards. Gun rights are guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. The Roe v Wade decision was based on a "right to privacy" identified by the SCOTUS. Abortion is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution and say it is such is just stupid.

  • Macy's Window||

    It was satire.

  • Fancylad||

    Is the Handmaid's Tale covert Islamophobia? The doctrines the evil "xtians" practice have almost nothing in common with American Christian Fundamentalism, or any denomination (except maybe, very distantly, Mormonism; Children of Ham, etc.), but are very similar to general Salafist practices.

    It seems to me it's using a Christian veneer to surreptitiously attack Islam.

  • antiestablismentarianism||

    First of all, every side thinks their views are "common sense", but the other side sees them as idiots. Second, what constitution are you reading? You have those backwards. Abortion "rights" are not guaranteed by the constitution, they are guaranteed by the decision in roe vs wade, a supreme court decision that can be overturned by 5 or more people. Gun rights are guaranteed by the second amendment. To overturn an amendment, you need 2/3 legislature of every single state to approve a new amendment.

    Back to your first point, guns aren't the problem, people are. A pro life stance can also be considered common sense if you believe abortion to be the murder of a living human being.

  • STSA||

    Common sense gun safety? Wow! You are indeed a Liberal, there's no "tarian" in your philosophy.

    #1. Gun safety is using a gun safely, such as keeping your finger off the trigger and assuming it's loaded.
    #2. Gun CONTROL is holding it with two hands, or passing laws to CONTROL law-abiding citizens that don't need any controlling
    #3. If the kids can walk out of school for one cause, they can walk out for any cause. Public institutions must be content NEUTRAL. So yes, the pro-life teacher was right, kids should be free to protest abortion.
    #4. I wish every liberal had an abortion. In fact, I disagree with my pro-life friends, abortions for liberals should be free and encouraged.
    #5. I'll support open borders when you support leaving your house door open at night.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She did a service, reminding schools why you don't entertain the fads of the day if you can at all avoid it.

  • ||

    And she was rewarded in kind, she went in a regular teacher and came out on leave and administrative pay. Win-win.

  • sparkstable||

    But her replacement will be a Stalinist. She left her kids unprotected.

  • Hunthjof||

    She also did it as a great discussion in civics.

  • damikesc||

    Funny thing is...when funding for education starts to get slashed by people the education establishment spends much time attacking, it will be blamed on them being "anti-intellectual" and not, well, bullshit like this.

    Is it wrong to wish that Cruz had managed to hit a few more targets, given the prog douches that are whining and bitching from that shit of a high school?

  • Eidde||

    "several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities"

    Let's see if we can translate this passage of bureaucratese.

    The teacher wasn't 100% behind the student walkout, and this pissed off the students and parents (don't forget administrators) who supported the walkout.

    It would be nice if the school could come up with an explanation of when they'll let their students walk out of class.

    "student-led civic engagement activities" would certainly seem to include an anti-abortion walkout. Explain why it's not, administrators!

    And would you let a student walk out of class to protest the "civic issue" of getting a bad score on a test (so long as the student mutters some SJW stuff about discrimination)?

    Or what if a student wants to go to the bathroom? I seem to recall a requirement that teachers approve that kind of walkout, at least. Maybe bathroom breaks could be recategorized as civic engagement, since you can't learn if you're thinking about how much you have to go.

  • Microaggressor||

    Maybe bathroom breaks could be recategorized as civic engagement

    Only if you're trans, because then you'd be making a brave statement.

  • ||

    After untold generations of struggle are we finally to the point where all teen boys have a right to civic engagement in the girls locker room?

  • StackOfCoins||

    The segregation of locker rooms is plainly sexist and cisnormative.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "Hear, hear!" - every straight teenage boy ever

  • BigT||

    Separate but equal is perfectly OK. Sheesh!

  • damikesc||

    Ever seen, say, women's sports?

    Ain't much equal in that nonsense.

  • Headache||

    Right to cervix engagement?

  • TxJack 112||

    Actually, two students and one parent complained. The teacher was leading a class discussion. She posed the question would administrators give the same support if the issue was not guns but something else, such as abortion. When did asking a question become a crime or a violation of policy? The actual issue is public school no longer focus on education but indoctrination of one political ideology, Progressivism.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance. Pro-life is intolerant. Therefore it shall not be tolerated.

  • BYODB||


    There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.

    -Nigel Powers

  • ||

    ...and Norwegians.

    /narrows gaze.

  • sarcasmic||

    Damn square-heads.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    A sub category of hoople-heads, no less.

  • Ska||

    I've been watching that all week, cocksuckers.

  • Ecoli||

    Fortunately, there were no dirt-worshippers.

  • Seamus||

    I govern my life according to the principle, WWAD (What Would Al Do?).

  • Brandybuck||

    The Dutch aren't really a culture, so it's okay.

  • BYODB||

    Take it up with Nigel ^_-

  • ||

    I think you misspelled Belgian

  • Rhywun||

    They don't even have their own language, poor bastards.

  • Azathoth!!||

    They don't even have their own language, poor bastards

    No one else actually has a language--they just pretend, to fuck with Americans.

  • ||

    Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance. Pro-life is intolerant. Therefore it shall not be tolerated.

    What is the definition of 'Zero Tolerance'?

    /Jeopardy

  • sarcasmic||

    Deferring to written rules without any question, judgement, or critical thinking. AKA working for government.

  • Headache||

    DING DING DING We have a winner!

  • Eidde||

    At least the teacher got a paid vacation out of it, but it seems that this is one of those masochistic teachers who wants to be in the classroom, so maybe for her it's a punishment.

  • shawn_dude||

    California's average teacher salary is 9th in the nation. So she's at least getting paid better than most of her peers.

  • vek||

    Not after taxes and cost of living is factored in!

  • Headache||

    After taxes? It is ROI.

  • John||

    As long as no student was unjustly disciplined for political speech, it seems to me like there's little reason for parents to complain, or for Benzel to be in trouble.

    There is no reason Robbie. And the point of this is to send the message that certain speech is not allowed. It is not about this woman. It is about intimidating anyone who might want to dissent into not doing so. This is pretty nasty shit. Odd that you can be so squine about it and not bother to mention its implications. No it is just one of those things I guess. Just kind of odd.

  • Alcibiades||

    If some kids in TX want to organize a national school walkout protest for Constitutional Carry in all fifty states, wonder how that would playout, especially in, say, CA?

  • John||

    It wouldn't play out. The kids would be expelled or jailed if the schools could figure out a way to do it.

  • BYODB||

    We already know how they would do it. They would just accuse the kid of being a potential school shooter and expel them or send them an 'alternative campus' gulag. ^_-

  • Alcibiades||

    The schools that did nothing and told students, get your parents permission or if you walkout it will count as an unexcused, did the right thing.
    This was nothing less than a state-sponsored protest.

  • silver.||

    "state-sponsored protest..."

    Maybe 2018 will be the year where we create a variant of Poe's law where we have to figure out if a statement is real or from a dystopian novel.

    Fist's law.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Fist-o-Truth" or Fist-o-Fiction?
    Or just the usual "Fist-o-State"

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The future turned out to be so much dumber than Orwell could have imagined.

  • sparkstable||

    It would be seen as advocating violence. I mean... other violence than the state violently oppressing those who disagree with it but that's the good kind.

  • Headache||

    Ohio student suspended for staying in classroom during gun control walkout

  • Finrod||

    Some hard-left school in New Jersey already wants to suspend kids because their parents took them to a gun range and they took pictures. Even pictures of a gun make Team Blue fuckos piss themselves.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You know Robby intentionally puts things like that in there just to piss you off, right?

  • John||

    Good for him. At least he is good at something.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    He is a master baiter. And you always swallow the hook.

  • ||

    You know Robby intentionally puts things like that in there just to piss you off, right?

    So Reason is generally talking past any newcomers to the site and the wider audience-at-large, foregoing the pretense of libertarianism, and distinctly fucking with specific critics? Seems like a piss-poor way to be spending the donors' money *and* advancing libertarianism, a really good (and apparently profitable) way of fucking with John, or both.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    So Reason is generally talking past any newcomers to the site and the wider audience-at-large, foregoing the pretense of libertarianism, and distinctly fucking with specific critics?

    No. Robby is inserting perfectly benign statements into his articles to piss off people like John. I suspect people not like John don't get all wound up about the perfectly benign statements.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    piss off people like John.

    I call them Soaveflakes.

  • John||

    I am not really sure why enjoying kicking Robby around is a sign of weakness but kissing his ass and pretending how great he is isn't.

  • ||

    Robby is inserting perfectly benign statements into his articles to piss off people like John.

    It's weird how you use 'perfectly benign' and 'specifically included for malicious effect' in the same sentence without recognizing that you were using them to describe the same thing.

    Even more weird is how John is derided for his forum-based mind reading abilities while Robby's even greater ability to control who gets the 'perfectly benign' interpretation and who gets the 'piss off people like John' interpretation is just known and understood fact.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's weird how you use 'perfectly benign' and 'specifically included for malicious effect' in the same sentence without recognizing that you were using them to describe the same thing.

    It's not weird at all. It's hardly Robby's fault that some people get worked up when he says "I don't think..." or "I'm not sure why...". They are benign statements that some people get mad at.

    Robby's even greater ability to control who gets the 'perfectly benign' interpretation and who gets the 'piss off people like John' interpretation is just known and understood fact.

    What's weird about Robby knowing what statements will trigger certain people?

  • Azathoth!!||

    You can't listen to Sparky anymore.

    He moved under a bridge a while ago.

    Now he just sits there, shouting......and waiting for billy goats.

    Gruff ones.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    He moved under a bridge a while ago.

    Says the guy who shows up an hour later to fling insults. You're quite the "special" one.

  • Tony||

    You people kept bitching about a lefty takeover of schools and the commie indoctrination of our children, so we decided to just go ahead and do it.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Point for honesty there el Tonio.

  • ||

    Finally. An admission.

    It's all we asked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We already knew Tony.

    Thanks to the internet, this stuff will just help counter every new move toward socialism that is made by your people.

    I also want to thank you and your lefty brethren for being so horrible that more and more Americans are waking up to lefty nonsense.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I've been trying to get some information on the increase in NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, et al membership in the past few weeks. There are allusions to significant increases but nothing verifiable. The NRA tends to be rather guarded about this information for whatever reason.

  • Alcibiades||

    I'd like to know that as well.
    I extended my NRA membership by two years a week or so back.
    Also joined Gun Owners of America, used to be a member but let it lapse.

  • Zeb||

    NRA is certainly spending a lot on YouTube ads lately.

  • Alcibiades||

    Seeing those too.

  • Finrod||

    I heard NRA membership increased about 10 percent from 5 million.

  • silver.||

    Someone I knew had a heart attack and quit smoking. Everyone kept bothering her about quitting, so she decided that if everyone was going to pester her anyway she might as well smoke and started again.

    Flawless logic.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hm, should I encourage you to continue equating the right with murderous gun-toting monsters?

    Hmm...

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Yes we did!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "And so I just kind of used the example which I know it's really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time,"

    What's controversial about acknowledging the existence of another point of view?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    She obviously knows the correct meaning of the word "controversial".

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...the existence of another point of view?" Seriously? You're kidding, right?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yes, by my reading of what she did, she gave an example of a thing which could be protested. The thing (abortion) is controversial, but her pointing it out isn't. Maybe she wasn't referring to her act of giving the example as "controversial" but was referring to "abortion" as being controversial.

    If I say "Some people are against gay marriage" that should not be considered a controversial statement. it's a statement of fact. If I say "I am against gay marriage" that is certainly a controversial statement.

    Given previous examples covered here at reason, people have been sanctioned for saying the former.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, not only is abortion a controversial subject. It's something that lots of people like to protest. So it's a perfect example to use, whatever you think of abortion or abortion protesters.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's controversial because abortion is a religion to most. To even question is sacrilege. Even the ACLU sold out HARD on defending the rights of pro-life protesters at the turn of the century.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And secular humanitarianism is a religion, albeit a loosely organized one. It has it's creed and catechism. and it is heresy to oppose it. Ask any college professor. Or this teacher under discussion.

  • Zeb||

    secular humanitarianism

    You mean "secular humanism"?

    I don't think that's really a left-wing thing. Or particularly a religion. It's just Western cultural and intellectual values, minus the God stuff. I'd say most non-religious libertarians could fairly be called "secular humanists".

    Certain secular humanist organizations, on the other hand, do look a lot like religion.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes I meant humanism.

  • JuanQPublic||

    It's likely she used "controversial" because that's a qualifier when attempting to explain her position to highly indoctrinated students, parents and administration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Uh-oh. The cracks in the lefty hold on the narrative are starting.

    I can't wait for the lefties to squirm after "one of their own" brings up a double standard and that quite possibly, the march was only political in nature to take guns.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Did you find any lefties hiding in your underwear this morning? Are you glad it's almost spring so you can finally get to eradicating the lefty nest in your barn?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It is surely infested by now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't wear underwear, you underwear Gnome.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    STEVE SMITH NOT HAVE UNDERWEAR DUE TO CONSTRICTION OF STEVE SMITH'S GLORY!

  • Red Tony||

    Steve Smith's Glory, n. Language of origin: English. Definition: Steve Smith's Sasquatch Shitmaker.

  • Brandybuck||

    So a teacher in a red city in a red county dared to let students consider the idea of protesting abortion. In a normal red city in a red county this would be be a nothingburger. This this is a red city in a red county in a bright blue state right next door to a bright blue state capital. It goes without saying that the administrators will be bright blue. She was punished because she got off the approved narrative.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Metro Sacramento is not a red area.

  • Brandybuck||

    It's still Placer County. But yeah, Rocklin is probably a bedroom town for Sacramento. Close enough for the government drones to commute, far enough away they can pretend they're not in the heart of the beast.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is nothing wrong with being pro-life.

    Using the power of the state to force others to live by your religious beliefs is wrong though.

  • Just Say'n||

    Only the religious oppose murder

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Abortion is clearly not murder.

    Anyway, libertarians support self determination. If you support a police state to enforce contraception laws then you are no fan of liberty.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yup, opposing the killing of a child past twenty weeks is definitely not murder. As long as we close our eyes and just wish it so, it must be true.

  • ||

    I'm with you Poppy!

  • BYODB||

    PB knows exactly the moment when a fetus becomes a child, they just won't reveal when that is because later on PB might need to move those goalposts.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "Murder" has a legal definition and abortion does not meet it.

    I knew Rufus was a conservative dumbass and now you too.

  • ||

    Poo-tee-weet?

  • Just Say'n||

    Or, maybe I am logical enough to admit that abortion is a conflicted natural right and that to have an abortion violates the non-aggression principle as much as denying someone an abortion does the same. You know, like nearly all libertarian writers before had determined

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A "conflicted" right?

    At least someone can admit that these so-called natural rights are poorly defined.

    OK, you are not making a conservative argument after all. Like Hayek said, conservatives aren't very bright.

  • BYODB||

    It's not that they're poorly defined, it's that they can come into conflict. Just because two things are in conflict doesn't mean they're ill defined. Of course, this is just another example of why it's ludicrous when you try to stand on natural rights to make an argument. You just end up revealing that you don't understand the subject.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Drop your final two words.

  • gormadoc||

    In the antebellum South, was killing one of your slaves murder since it wasn't against the law?

  • Seamus||

    Actually, in the antebellum South, killing one of your slaves *was* against the law and *was* murder, unless you could fit it into one of the categories for excusable or justifiable homicide. (This wasn't ancient Rome, after all.) The fact that slaveholders often got away with it doesn't mean it was legal, any more than the fact that Emmett Till's killers got away with it means it was legal to kill blacks in Mississippi in the 1950s.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, that is not clear at all.

    A contraceptive is not an abortificient, if the terms are applied correctly. Don't move your goalposts.

    Self- determination does not include treating other human creatures as disposable.

  • Finrod||

    Buttplug's goalposts come with jet engines attached.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Clearly might be an overstatement.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Don't Progressives claim that government should act to protect Society's "most vulnerable" members? Who is more vulnerable than an unborn child? Maybe you are no fan of protecting the vulnerable? At least not the inconvenient vulnerable?

  • Seamus||

    "Clearly"? Do you know what that word means?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Only the religious oppose murder

    Nonsense

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually the nonsense is saying that people who support any limitations are abortion are only motivated by religion. But, you keep pretending like you're not being motivated by a blind allegiance to a peculiar religion

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I don't even know what the fuck you're saying here now. I'm not religious. I oppose murder. My stance on religion is that after a certain amount of time I don't think people should do it. However, it's not my job to tell everyone else how to handle their lives.

    Can you maybe not be a retard for two minutes now?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    My stance on abortion...

  • Mickey Rat||

    How do you oppose murder?

    Do you just wag your fingers at murderers and say "shame on you!" , or do you support them being punished for their acts? If so, why is that not telling them how to handle their lives?

  • BYODB||

    So murder only affects the life of the murderer, you say? Very interesting, can you elaborate?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    So murder only affects the life of the murderer, you say? Very interesting, can you elaborate?

    Don't use abortion and murder interchangeably and expect me to play along.

  • BYODB||


    Don't use abortion and murder interchangeably and expect me to play along.

    I was specifically referring to Mickey Rat, who is dumb ass, but even while I'm pro-choice I acknowledge it's murder. It's simply a socially acceptable form of murder, much like how taking someone off life support is murder. You're ending a life in both scenarios, even while there are good justifications for both of them. Shooting someone who is robbing you is also murder, at least in my book, so this is probably just a 'me' thing.

    I suppose it's up to every individual to justify that in whatever way makes it more palatable to them, but I can see the pro-life argument pretty damn clearly too and morally I tend to agree with them. That doesn't mean I want or need to force anyone to agree with me, though.

  • silver.||

    I can see the pro-life argument pretty damn clearly too and morally I tend to agree with them. That doesn't mean I want or need to force anyone to agree with me, though.

    My civics teacher in high school put it well: if you're not conflicted about abortion, you haven't given it enough thought.

    Both sides of the argument and ensuing grey areas could provide leverage for something awful like eugenics. IMO it's up to society to discourage abortions socially, and that is happening, although it's unclear how much is because of tighter restrictions on clinics and how much is because of contraception and effective education.

  • BYODB||


    IMO it's up to society to discourage abortions socially...

    Ye gods, someone who recognizes a difference between society and government? BURN THE WITCH!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Socially acceptable murder is, quite literally, a contradiction in terms.

    Don't throw stones in your glass house.

  • BYODB||


    Socially acceptable murder is, quite literally, a contradiction in terms.

    It's hyperbole, of course, but in terms of abortion it seems applicable to appease both viewpoints. It's a contradiction because abortion itself is a contradiction.

  • Phos||

    I'd agree with shooting to kill someone running away with your property.

    If they are a credible threat to your life it would just be self defense. You shoot them to make them stop being a threat (as in they run away or are incapacitated). Since the aim is in threat elimination not death, then it is not murder.

    If one is going to conceal carry, perhaps one should also have Quick-Clot or the like. I could see not packing after shot supplies, or not doing other actions to attempt life support after incapacitation as being negligent homicide. Morally. Legally, only if the cops are held to the same standard.

    Also unlike all the bad guys before the final boss in the movie, shooting someone does not automatically mean killing someone.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Abortion does not affect the life the one aborted?

    Sparky is begging the question on whether abortion is an unjustified killing or not, then saying that people who disagree with him aretelling othet people how to live their lives.

    Is asserting that human rights exist and myst be respected interfering in how the people who disagree live their lives or is it justice?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Sparky is begging the question on whether abortion is an unjustified killing or not,

    I am? That's news to me. I have arbitrarily chosen four months to be the point at which a woman should not get an abortion. Having done that, it's not my duty to force my position onto anyone. If anyone asks for my stance, I'll offer it freely. If anyone still chooses abortion after that, that's their choice.

    saying that people who disagree with him aretelling othet people how to live their lives.

    Wrong again. I said it's not my job to tell others how to live their lives. If you want to call women who get abortions and doctors who perform abortions murderers, be my guest. If you're willing to punish doctors but not women, then I'll just echo the sentiments of another and call you deranged.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Do you just wag your fingers at murderers and say "shame on you!" , or do you support them being punished for their acts?

    In my opinion, murderers should be at the mercy of someone directly affected by their actions. If that person decides that punishment is appropriate, then so be it.

    If so, why is that not telling them how to handle their lives?

    Me telling someone what I think is appropriate is not me forcing someone to live by my morals. You dig?

    If you believe abortion is murder, are you OK with killing a woman about to get one? Or is lethal response only available in self defense? If so, how do you propose punishing someone who had an abortion?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What precisely is the difference in a fetus before and after delivery? How do you propose to define a human? Is it permissable to kill a mother if she is attempting to kill her newborn? How do you propose to punish a mother who did kill her newborn?

    Libertarians hand wave away the definition of a human and then turn right around and claim that capital punishment is unquestionably wrong. That's pretty convenient.

  • BYODB||

    You bring up one of the arguments against abortion that I find to be more persuasive, which is that defining the line across which a person is a person and if they aren't on this side of the line they aren't a person is a dangerous point of view that's caused some of the most evil things that have ever happened in this world.

    It's a very progressive thing to do, though, and you see it in so many area's they control that it truly enrages me sometimes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'm actually pro-choice up to the point of viability. At least that has a physical basis.

  • Phos||

    I lean towards capital punishment for murder and kidnapping for moral and religious reasons.

    But in practice, the determination and execution is by a group that in other areas I would see as too often corrupt and/or incompetent.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And by what mechanism is the murderer put at that person's mercy? By law, or only if the victim's survivor has the strength and cunning to do it themselves? If it is the former, society must make a moral judgement on their actions. If the latter, justice is only for the strong.

    It is the abortionist who does the killing in abortion. Punish them.

  • BYODB||


    It is the abortionist who does the killing in abortion. Punish them.

    So in essence, you're saying the person that hired the killer to kill has no accountability? Interesting.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    And by what mechanism is the murderer put at that person's mercy? By law, or only if the victim's survivor has the strength and cunning to do it themselves?

    If a society comes to a mutual agreement on how it should be handled, then that's how it's done.

    If it is the former, society must make a moral judgement on their actions.

    And then? Is this supposed to poke some hole in what I'm saying? Maybe you should ask me what I think about 330 million people being forced to live by the same moral code.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    If the latter, justice is only for the strong.

    Please, do tell me how the legal code of the United States is not the moral code of the strong being forced upon the weak.

  • Seamus||

    So if the fetus can exercise self-defense, or take revenge after the fact, he/she should go for it.

  • shawn_dude||

    "Only the religious oppose murder"

    ...says only the religious.

  • Brandybuck||

    Being pro-life is not religious. It could be informed by one's religion, but it is itself not a religious belief anymore than opposition to murder or theft are religious beliefs depsite both of those being in the Ten Commandments.

    Libertarians for Life was founded by an atheist, for example. The reason most pro-lifers are religious, is simply because most religious people view the commandments of their deity to be more important than the commandments of the state.

  • Eidde||

    Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, formerly the Clergy Consultation Service, run by pro-abortion clerics who made abortion referrals at a time when abortion was illegal.

    Bottom line: Religious motivation is OK so long as it's pro-abortion.

  • ||

    Being pro-life is not religious.

    Even then, it's such a broad topic that it's still regarded as controversial *within* the religious/non-religious factions.

    There's hardly a libertarian (or other) alive or dead that's made an objective dent in the 14-18 (to 21?) year gap between being a 100% abortable proto-human and being a fully self-directed autonomous legal agent.

  • ||

    I don;t know who you are, but I like you.

  • colorblindkid||

    I consider opposition to the second amendment to be a religious belief. Can't use the power of the state to force others to live by that belief.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What about using the power of the Teacher's Unions via Bloomgerg's Everytown to trick kids into wearing tee shirts?

  • Alcibiades||

    Were those being handed out?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'll check with my daughter tonight.

  • Alcibiades||

    Ask if they were being required to wear them either directly or in more indirect ways.

  • Just Say'n||

    "regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities."

    The school couldn't even stop lying in their statement.

  • ||

    lol.

    'Civic engagement activities' = to the extent they follow and toe the progressive line.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The student-led is also a lie. They're just following the leash.

  • ||

    It really is sickening and abhorrent how they're using children as pawns to push their narratives.

    And it's a strange kick they're on too.

    The other day some kid was on Tucker Carlson lecturing us about Venezuela and how 'unbridled capitalism' destroyed Venezuela and 'fair elections' were taking place. That Maduro, furthermore, acknowledged reforms are needed.

    It's like I got up in the Bizarro world.

  • Rhywun||

    Out of the mouths of babes...

  • BYODB||

    The idea that capitalism is what killed Venezuela is amusing when Venezuela was, just a few short years ago, being listed as one of the 'successful' socialist states.

    So which is it? Can they honestly not tell a difference between capitalism and socialism?

  • silver.||

    So which is it? Can they honestly not tell a difference between capitalism and socialism?

    No.

  • Rhywun||

    Maybe they mean our capitalism killed Venezuela.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They had fantastic intentions but bad luck and mean, greedy people thwarting them.

  • silver.||

    They had fantastic intentions but bad luck and mean, greedy people thwarting them.

    Isolated incident. It'll totally work here; our politicians aren't mean, greedy, and corrupt.

  • sparkstable||

    Can any rando off the street recognize capitalism? Most every American thinks America is a capitist system. After all... isn't that what the Cold War was about? Capitalism versus Communism? (sarcasm)

    The truth is that any instance that can possibly be viewed as anyones free choice is seen as capitalism... even if that free choice was Maduro's choice or Chave's choice. The solution is therefore to not let the plebs have free choices and let people like Maduro et al choose for everyone. (Contradictions abound... I know. As I like to say, "Their logic is peccable.")

  • ||

    'To be sure', didn't the school just prove her point?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Of course they wouldn't. The teacher's union won't allow it.

  • ||

    ...after she let students discuss the politics of the National School Walkout

    This is probably her biggest transgression.

  • Jerryskids||

    That was Robby's words. The school spoke of "student-led civic engagement" - i.e., not at all political. See, the policies the left wants the government to implement are common-sense, reasonable, objectively factual things that everybody can agree on and are therefore not at all controversial or ideologically biased whereas the misguided, hate-filled, fear-based racist and sexist extremism of the right is nothing but psychotic delusions which all rational people instinctively resist. Schools exist to teach children facts - like "guns are bad and only evil people like guns" - and not to fill their heads with silly nonsense like "some people may have validly logical reasons for having opinions different from yours".

  • Just Say'n||

    What's the difference between students that leave school for gun control and students that leave school to protest abortion?

    The students who leave school to protest abortion wouldn't get a Tweet in support of their efforts from the 'Libertarian' Party as the gun control students did. There are abortion zealots and they are mainly on the pro-choice side

  • ||

    Gilmore had linked to a kid who was literally alone in a parking lot as part of the walkout and the media turned him into a 'yo go brah' national celebrity. Something, something 'courage' and 'truth to power'.

    EXT. Parking lot. Kid talking to camera.

    Kid: I'm here. All alone. In this vacant parking lot. No one showed up. But I'm keeping my spirit up. I have a bottle of Gatorade here to keep me going. Oh, here comes someone now!

    Squints. Eyes widen.

    Kid: Shit, it's my father!

    Runs away.

    Father: Charles! You come back here this minute!

  • Zeb||

    There are abortion zealots and they are mainly on the pro-choice side

    Oh, there are plenty to go around on both sides. From where I sit, it looks like the pro-lifers are the more zealous. But I may just be exposed to more of that.

  • John||

    The percent of pro life people who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances is much smaller than the percentage of pro choice people who believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstnaces. You can't get the pro choice people to agree to ban nine month partial birth abortions. I honestly can't see how you can say they are not more extreme than the pro life faction.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not talking about the extremity of their views, but of the zealotry with which they promote them. It's not pro-choice people who bring up abortion in every single thread on H&R, for example.
    I might be wrong, but the way it looks to me, the pro-abortion extreme you describe is really held by a pretty small minority.

    And I think it is understandable that the most absolute pro-life people are more zealous than pro-choice people. If you really believe it's morally equivalent to murder, then you are unerstandably going to get worked up about it.

  • John||

    I am unaware of anyone who brings up abortion in every thread. I would say the pro-choice people dredge up Eric Rudolf more than pro life people insert abortion into unrelated contexts. Virtually any thread about islam includes some pro choice person bringing up Eric Rudolph as an example of how the real threat is the anti abortion nuts not the Muslims. The same is true of about any thread on terrorism or religon.

  • Zeb||

    Well, there's Eddie for starters. But he's not the only one who tries to shoehorn it into every possible topic. I can't remember the last time someone brought up Eric Rudolph here. But I'm not goign to go back and count, so forget it.

    I'm really not trying to bash pro-lifers here (though I do think abortion should be legal at least fairly early and not overly restricted). I;m just saying what it looks like to me.

  • BYODB||

    I think it's because there's going to be a difference in how people approach the problem because of the way they innately view it. If you believe abortion is murder, for instance, you're going to fight a lot harder to get rid of it versus someone that just thinks abortion is an exercise in conflicting natural rights or is a 'women's choice' issue RE: Maslow.

  • Zeb||

    That's what I'm saying. It's natural that pro-lifers would be more zealous about it because of what they think is at stake.

  • ||

    Maybe, I wonder, they're more zealous because the law is not on their side?

  • John||

    Even the people who think it is murder for the most part understand that it is not practical to ban it under all circumstances or treat it like murder even if you could. The people who view it as a medical procedure seem to lack the ability to see the limitations of their claim. Even if you think life doesn't begin at conception, it is utterly unreasonable to claim it doesn't begin until after birth. Granted it is impossible to tell exactly when, but at some point life does begin before birth. To say it doesn't is to say that one moment you are a lump of cells no different than a tumor and then the next moment due to the magic trip down the birth canal you are a full human being. That is an utterly arbitrary and unreasonable distinction.

  • ||

    Know who started to turn me to see the other side? Bio-ethicists.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I just want some consistency. If causing the death of a human intentionally is bad, then you don't get to just arbitrarily move the defined goalposts simply to suit your desired outcome. Conversely if it is permissible to kill a human when they have committed no crime, then it's equally permissible to kill them when they do commit heinous crimes.

    It would be convenient if pi were 3. The universe doesn't care about my convenience.

  • John||

    I think you can say killing is wrong outside of certain situations where justice or self-preservation demand it. I don't think it is inconsistent to say someone who murders someone should be killed but killing a child for convenience is wrong.

  • Alcibiades||

    The LP really did that?

  • Just Say'n||

    twitter.com/LPNational/status/973952192708308993

    As retweeted by Nick Sarwark

  • Alcibiades||

    Who has priority here, legal and moral, the LP or the kid's parents?

  • Rhywun||

    Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day

    To be sure, I don't know WTF this even means. Students don't have "free expression rights" at home or anywhere someone is acting in loco parentis. The school has every right to tell them to STFU if it wants to.

  • Just Say'n||

    "To be sure, I don't know WTF this even means."

    You say that as if he usually does know

  • Alcibiades||

    Agreed

    They ain't "locked up" either. Ours are there (actually on spring break just now) because we send them there, they weren't sent there by a judge to do time. Just more of the usual hyperbole.

  • Phos||

    The doors aren't locked, but they do get in trouble for taking off for a couple of hours.

  • silver.||

    Ours weren't locked, but they were alarmed during school.

    Truancy is definitely a big enough offense to warrant false fire alarms.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Bullshit. It is agains the law for you to NOT send them.

    Unless you have enough money to pay for somewhere to take them of course.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Bullshit. It is agains the law for you to NOT send them.

    Unless you have enough money to pay for somewhere to take them of course."

    Bullshit, We send them there because we WANT to send them there. If we didn't WANT to send them there or to another school we would home school.
    Just more libertarian histrionics.

  • ||

    That's not actually correct. The constitutional line is how disruptive the speech is.

  • GILMORE™||

    The constitutional line is how disruptive the speech is.

    true.

    but that line disproves the idea of any "right" as much as anything.

    1st amendment law regarding schools is some interesting stuff, but the only obvious takeaway is that students DO NOT have the same speech rights as adult citizens, and schools have unusual degree of discretion in use of authority - especially when creating 'rules' for entire groups. when they fuck up it is usually when they single someone out for some 'free expression' (e.g. wearing political/salacious clothing) , but not when they are making broad rules for limitations on group behavior.

  • ||

    No Constitutional rights are absolute. If you believe that means everyone has been using the wrong word for 250 years, well...

  • GILMORE™||

    "No Constitutional rights are absolute."

    not sure why you think this is an necessary point when my own was qualifying the idea of absolute rights in the first place.

  • ||

    disproves the idea of any "right"

    It only disproves it if one believes "right" = "absolute right". Since that is not the meaning, I don't see how it disproves anything.

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't see how it disproves anything.

    this:

    ""Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day""

    anyone who says this doesn't have the first clue about 1st amendment jurisprudence in schools

    of course, its Robby, so... par for course.

  • ||

    He's not Damon. I read that from the perspective of one applying their personal moral code to the situation and not passing legal judgement.

    I'll stop defending Robby now. :O

  • GILMORE™||

    "" their personal moral code"'

    to be sure

  • GILMORE™||

    My point was that students have exceptionally circumscribed 'rights'.

    robby's line was stupid. Rhywun was mostly correct: schools have unique authority,especially when it comes to group behavior.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My rights are absolute. It's just that the state keeps infringing on them.

  • GILMORE™||

    ^still mad about the F he got in civics

  • Zeb||

    I believe that courts have disagreed with you on several occasions.

  • GILMORE™||

    as well as affirmed his point - far far more often.

    the devil, as noted above, is in the details, and whether the school's abridgment is in the sake of collective order to enable their own pedagogical function.

    students don't have 'free expression rights' in any broad sense. there are areas where exceptions have been carved out, but otherwise public schools students are wards of the state. the exceptions don't really validate Robby's stupid claim.

  • John||

    Not really Zeb. Gimore is a lot more right than Soave. States can restrict speech as long as it is content neutral and it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. Order and discipline in schools is a compelling state interest. And as Gilmore points out, schools get a lot of leeway in making their rules.

    Where they get in trouble is where they either unevenly enforce the rules, have rules that are not content neutral, or have rules that don't advance any state interest. Reason made a big deal about the case involving the school punishing the kid for wearing the pro pot shirt. There, the kid wasn't in class. And the school couldn't articulate any state interest in controlling speech outside of class. So, the school lost. But they absolutely could prohibit that kid from wearing that shirt in class, provided that they had a content-neutral rule that banned all messages on clothing of a controversial or political nature.

    The idea that schools have an obligation under the first amendment to allow their kids to leave class to attend a protest is absurd. It is something so stupid and at odds with the law that only someone like Soave could believe it.

  • Zeb||

    All I meant to say is that there are areas where courts have decided that students do have some right to free expression. Thinking mostly of the Tinker case, which I believe is where the standards you are talking about were established.

    So, yes, really. I never claimed that they have absolute freedom in school or anything like that.

  • John||

    I don't think you were. Robby seems to be claiming that. And it was a thoughtless and stupid comment.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I dpubt the simple requirement of "be in class" during school hours is one of those restrictions that is going to fail constitutional muster.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are almost certainly correct there.

  • I can't even||

    I posted it yesterday, but what the hell.

    "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it,... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

    - George Orwell

  • silver.||

    It's unsettling. I think a lot of progressive ideals are subject to pluralistic ignorance. We think that nobody else shares the same counter-narrative opinions and that our view must be incorrect. Everyone quietly self-censors.

  • silver.||

    And of course conservative ideals, too. The scale is just tipping left now. Same inherent problems with groupthink.

  • Rhywun||

    Interesting link. It helps explain Bill Deblasio.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Somehow I can't help but look at these students as little establishment puppets. Back in MY DAY (we were superior in wokeness in MY DAY, ha ha), we would have headed for the beach, fuck the school principal.

  • CE||

    If kids want to skip class, send them to study hall after school for twice as long as they skipped.

    By condoning political protests, the schools are guilty of the greatest modern sin -- micro-aggressing against those who don't agree with the politics behind the protest, othering them for holding mainstream but unpopular views.

  • sparkstable||

    Paraphrased: Being right when the government is wrong is one of the greatest dangers one can face.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Her students saw her point,"

    and that's where she screwed up

  • Rebel Scum||

    A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities.

    She committed the crime of trying to teach "critical thinking".

  • Alcibiades||

    Gotta stick to the script:

    During the National School Walkout, a student at New Prague High School in Minnesota held a sign that said: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

    https://www.chicksonright.com/2018/03/15/
    your-voice-matters-conservative-student
    -removed-from-national-school-walkout/

  • silver.||

    "Guns don't kill people, they're hunks of metal. People with guns kill people without guns" would be hard to read on a sign.

    Technically, the students have only very limited 1A rights, and it's contingent upon them not being disruptive. This kid wasn't being disruptive, so it's a bunch of crap that he was removed, but even when I was in public school a million years ago we weren't allowed to wear shirts with weapons, drugs, or foul language. The school has legal precedent for squashing his unpopular opinion. We're just going to have to keep an eye out for it, not that we can really slow the indoctrination protocols.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Technically, the students have only very limited 1A rights, and it's contingent upon them not being disruptive."

    And remembering what we were like at school I'm in agreement with that position. The same rules apply for clothes worn at our kids' school.

    I have every kind of problem when they start pushing a particular viewpoint at school.

  • sparkstable||

    The idea of "disruptive" sounds reasonable at first. But imagine this kids scenario. What, exactly, Made his position potentially disruptive granting the school authority to silence him?

    He was a minority opinion. That means the mob decides what is not only acceptable, but what will be treated as "right" and "wrong" in terms of absolute truth. At least on schools. And since the admin can curtail or cultivate group activities rather early in their genesis, the state has a very real control on what ideological makeup the mob will consist of. The individual is predetermined to be damned as a devil in such a scenario.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    New Prague is very rural. Abandon all hope...

  • Slocum||

    Hmmm -- I suspect this is going to more than a hypothetical. I'd bet more than even money that a right-to-life school walkout to protest abortion will now be tried somewhere.

  • DiegoF||

    I wonder if you can find a school bureaucrat class that is pro-life in even the most backwoods corner of Mississippi.
    (Not said with contempt; no one is more pro-life than me.)

  • silver.||

    Yes! I have relatives in the southeast who are true Dixiecrats. Lifelong Democrats because they gave the best pay bumps, but refused to vote for Obama. They are also very pro-life. Socially conservative and fiscally liberal. An anti-libertarian.

  • Cloudbuster||

    ... today's student-led civic engagement activities.

    Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day, and letting them peacefully protest gun violence seemed like the right call to me.

    Don't expect me to believe the ridiculous proposition that these protests were "student-led." This was adults manipulating kids for the sake of propaganda.

  • DiegoF||

    Fake news! This protest was organized by the Women's March. Does anyone seriously doubt that it was not led predominantly by fifteenth-year grad students?

  • chemjeff||

    Before we cast judgment, it would be nice to know what she actually said in the classroom that evidently merited such a harsh punishment.

  • NoVaNick||

    The endless stream of prog virtue signaling since Trump took office has gone beyond retarded, and that's exactly what this walkout was-a carefully planned event by prog community organizers signaling to leftist teachers and parents. Why else would this teacher have been put on leave, but for daring to go against #RESIST's message?

    My son was talked into doing it by my wife. I stayed neutral rather than drag him into what would have been a nasty argument between me and his mom. But if there are any other events like these, I am going to insist he go to a private school.

  • DiegoF||

    I feel like we should have a links page where everyone in one of these libertarian-prog marriages that seem to proliferate tells more about their story. It's not like you have to agree politically with the person you're married to, of course. But libertarians are a passionate people, and their outmarriage rate seems to exceed that of Asian women.

  • NoVaNick||

    I think its because we libertarians are too nice that we end up married to progs. We just shrug and say "whatever" rather than fight. While prog womyn might prefer to marry easy-going libertarian dudes, its my theory that many of them lust after men like Harvey Weinstein and Trump who will grab them by their hair or p*ssy. That's why they want more big daddy government to protect them (and everyone) from themselves.

    But libertarians are a passionate people, and their outmarriage rate seems to exceed that of Asian women.

    Its nearly impossible to find libertarian chicks-the LP events I have been to are sausage fests. Meanwhile, conservative women are mostly married by the time they are 30, or will only marry other conservatives, so who does that leave for us? Progs.

  • silver.||

    Yep. Dated a full-tilt card-carrying Commie art grad student once. Couldn't be more of my political opposite, so we mostly avoided heated political discussions. I do know a libertarian-ish girl. There are many guys much more wholesome, wealthy, and charming than me chasing the handful of conservative women. Like NoVa says, our choices are pretty much liberal women or monk mode. Process of elimination.

    its my theory that many of them lust after men like Harvey Weinstein and Trump who will grab them by their hair or p*ssy. That's why they want more big daddy government to protect them (and everyone) from themselves.

    I won't say they want serious assault, but I'll add a datapoint saying that my experience is similar. I've been accused of passivity most times.

  • BYODB||

    I'm marrying a former lefty and gradually converted to her over to voting libertarian, but we were both debate kids and it seems that my arguments were ultimately more persuasive. So, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones?

  • silver.||

    So, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones?

    Libertarianism isn't an easy sell. It should be easy, but I get it; even I think it's impractical for many things. Maybe it was your debate skills, or maybe it was because she was open to viewing other opinions from having to argue against her own views multiple times. Really the concept of "people should be able to whatever they want with their person or property as long as they are not harming the person or property of a con-consenting other," is attractive. Folks resist it because of a lack of understanding, I think.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Folks resist it because of a lack of understanding, I think."

    Wish that were true, however I think in many the desire to control others is about the strongest desire of all, exceeding even the sexual response, and that accounts for a great deal of the regulatory state.

  • silver.||

    Wish that were true, however I think in many the desire to control others is about the strongest desire of all

    Fair point. I may be projecting my live-and-let-live attitude on others. I was raised as a libertarian, so at no point do I ever think to myself, "the government should..."

  • Alcibiades||

    I've seen it when I've argued with others on an issue and what seems to annoy the other side more than anything is the thought of others being permitted to act on their own volition and choosing "incorrectly".

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The weird part for me is that I was raised that way even though neither of my parents had ever even heard the word "libertarian". I was well into my 20s before I heard of it. A live-and-let-live attitude was pretty common all over our town; nobody liked busybodies.

    Fuck, being a busybody seems to be what most folks aspire to nowadays.

  • Alcibiades||

    It's that "live and let live" attitude that seems to have gone. In other words, the old "I may not approve of the way you live your life or your living arrangements etc but you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" is out the window.
    Now there are hordes of weasels examining social media for signs of heresy and the guility will be dragged into the "main square" and made to recant their heresies to correct thinking and have do it all with a smile on their face.

  • Rhywun||

    A live-and-let-live attitude was pretty common all over our town; nobody liked busybodies.

    You just described most of America up until around the end of the 1970's. Hell, well into the 80's even.

  • NoVaNick||

    My wife has gone further to the left since I have met her-go figure. Think its because of where we live and her field of work- we used to not talk politics much, but she's been getting more edgy about things in the past year.

  • MasterThief||

    Mine has a knee-jerk negative reaction to all the progressive bs in the area. I don't have her to the point of libertarianism, but she was already relatively conservative. The Fairfax school system was a source of many mutual outrages :D

  • damikesc||

    I read one article where a father told his daughter that a protest where there is literally zero risk to yourself could not be less meaningful.

  • John||

    Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day

    That might be the dumbest thing Robby has ever written.

  • Alcibiades||

    Agree.
    I also saw where colleges said they would ignore any school discipline records resulting from taking part in the walkout and by implication this same special exemption would not apply for sanctions resulting from other activities, like say, a protest for a non-SJW approved cause.

  • John||

    If those colleges were state run, someone needs to be suing them.

  • Alcibiades||

    What a surprise UCLA's on the list:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/health
    /universities-punish-walkouts-trnd/index.html

  • Alcibiades||

    Though I notice the UCLA wording there is generic and doesn't specifically quote the walkout.

  • silver.||

    Right. I've been supportive of these kids' activism since the week of the shooting. I still am, but that includes the ones who support gun rights, the counter-narrative. If colleges start turning people away for having protested for the wrong viewpoint, then we'll have a serious problem.

    They probably will, but we may never know about it.

  • Rhywun||

    I remember the days when kids didn't (have to) list stupid shit like this on college entrance applications. Mine was basically here are my grades, let me in. OK, Cornell gave me a personal interview but it wasn't like I had to submit an extensive portfolio of woke extracurricular activities.

  • DiegoF||

    Ooh, didn't think of that! But I'll have to chew it over a bit.

    Remember, the state has to be viewpoint neutral when it comes to things that have already been established to be speech restrictions. In other words, it sometimes has a (limited, and balanced) right to impose those "time, place, and manner" restrictions on citizen speech, but those must always be viewpoint neutral even when authorized. The state is not obligated to be viewpoint neutral itself. There is no establishment clause for state speech; it can have an official, and officially endorsed and encouraged, point of view. This is why the school districts cannot add extraordinary punishments for student expression of any political position, but they can add rewards for expression of any view they please, including in this case relief from ordinary punishment for expression of the correct official view (and no other). Doesn't seem at all like a fair, good, just, or legitimate policy, but it seems to be a lawful one.

  • Alcibiades||

    That sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.
    Student 1 with viewpoint A gets 5 points
    Student 2 with viewpoint B gets 1 point.

    Also not so sure that's the case for K-12 student discipline.
    One kid skips school to attend a gun show and gets the usual discipline for skipping.
    Another kid skips for the gun protest without parental approval and gets a pat on the back from the school for student civic engagement.
    If I was the first kid in the above I'd be real ticked off by this blatant double standard.

  • DiegoF||

    You can be ticked off all you want. It's the law. I agree with you; it's bullshit. But the way it works, whether we like it or not, is that the authorities defend themselves by establishing a clear "neutral" answer for what the kid "deserves." In this case, for example, the truants might deserve a one-day suspension for walking out of school in the middle of their class. Anything worse than that, worse than what he "deserves," the school cannot award the student for the content of his beliefs. Better than that, the school is just exercising its magnanimous discretion. Which they are totally entitled to do even in the service of furthering the expression of their own official viewpoint.

  • Alcibiades||

    Yeah I agree it is BS and it's open to abuse.

  • DiegoF||

    Jesus Christ you're right! I was wrong; even after seeing the example with his own eyes he still doesn't get it. I'd just assumed...I wasn't paying attention.

    If one of my kids ever takes a seminar with Professor Soave, Visiting Guest Lecturer (hey, everyone has the one they need to round out their credits), I'll tell him to protest his midterm and every paper. Take his sweet fucking time.

  • Paper Wasp||

    The school did what parents asked, though. Most of these cases of school batshittery involve doing exactly what complaining parents have asked them to do. The delicate, wilting hothouse flowers that are parents in California decided that the mere thought of pro-life students existing and exercising their rights just like the gun-control kids did yesterday was intolerable.

    If that woman's smart, she'll buff up her resume this weekend and start looking for a job teaching at a private or charter school.

  • DiegoF||

    Ouch; what a step down! They make a lot less.

  • Rhywun||

    A small price to pay for her sanity.

  • Rhywun||

    A small price to pay for her sanity.

  • DiegoF||

    But not yours! You're clearly losing it.

  • DiegoF||

    But not yours! You're clearly losing it.

  • Rhywun||

    Et tu?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Well, if you get fired for wrongthink, you make $0, so...

    That said, though, what she's got now is a union job, so maybe she gets paid forever and ever somehow even if they eventually fire her.

  • Flinch||

    Progs... double standards? Shocked, just shocked.

  • meh130||

    I think the parents and the administrators are the snowflakes. The kids seem to be able to handle a discussion.

  • Billy Beck||

    Wrecker!

  • Barry soetaro||

    The First Amendment only matters if you agree, otherwise it's void. No discussion, just join the goose stepping!

  • Barry soetaro||

    The First Amendment only matters if you agree, otherwise it's void. No discussion, just join the goose stepping!

  • josh||

    This is pretty sad. Almost as sad as all the protest enthusiasts claiming the #walkupnotout effort is victim blaming.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding today's student-led civic engagement activities."

    The Right needs to learn to bitch as incessantly as the Left, and to fight back in kind generally.

    Sure, it sucks, and it's not the way you'd want to live, but you *can't* live the way you want with the Left. It's just not an option. You can fight back, or be crushed.

    Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.

  • Sevo||

    "Students' free expression rights should vastly outweigh the state's interest in locking kids up all day, and letting them peacefully protest gun violence seemed like the right call to me."

    When a protest was actually arranged by the kids, I'd agree. Most every instance I've witnessed, the kids are little other than props for the teachers' or school officials' political positions.

  • SukieTawdry||

    Oh, pish-tosh. Students are subject to the rules the schools establish for them. If their parents wish to let them demonstrate on behalf of the gun control lobby, they can do it on their own time.

  • chipper me timbers||

    As always, the answer here is simple. Don't send your kids to public school.

  • dgeorge||

    This teacher raised a good question, but she got the students to think, so she got suspended.
    When I was a kid we all dropped our pencils as a joke, in a way, it was classroom community organizing.
    I wonder...
    If pro-life students nationwide all dropped their pencils at 9 AM to protest womb violence, would they be punished.
    If not, do it every day for nine months... Tweet - #dropforlifeat9AM

  • Netizen_James||

    What a nonsensical term 'womb violence'.

    So you think a woman who is unfortunate enough to have an ectopic pregnancy should just DIE?

    Do you ever actually stop and think anything through?
    Or are you just another knee-jerk reactionary who is too ignorant to know what an ectopic pregnancy is, and too lazy to use google to look it up?

    Are you some sort of religious nut who actually believes in 'souls' or 'spirits' or any of that mythological crap?

  • ||

    Why do my tax dollars go to teachers and administrators who are not viewpoint neutral in schools? This whole stunt makes me start to rethink my position that we should have public schools at all. Maybe the anarcho-capitalists are right and we should get rid of all public schools.

  • vek||

    Some cool non pussy kid, in some sane state, should organize a pro gun school walkout. It would never be allowed, but would illustrate the hypocrisy very nicely.

    Also, I'm sooooooooo glad my dad moved us out of California when I was in high school. Living where I do in Seattle is bad enough... But the state government is only just now turning bat shit crazy. In Cali ALL levels of government, and most of the people are nuts.

  • mamabug||

    There's a conservative group that offered to help organize a pro-2nd amendment event at any school that sanctioned the use of school resources to support the walk-out. Unsurprisingly this hasn't been getting much publicity.

  • mamabug||

    There's a conservative group that offered to help organize a pro-2nd amendment event at any school that sanctioned the use of school resources to support the walk-out. Unsurprisingly this hasn't been getting much publicity.

  • vek||

    I'm not surprised. God this country is so screwed.

  • Netizen_James||

    My god - what triggered snowflakes you people are.

    There is no evidence that she was reprimanded for saying something about abortion. That's solely HER speculation, with no evidence to support it. None whatsoever.

    But you folks are going to jump all over her, insult her looks just like your hero Don Guano (Trump) would, and simply run with your evidence-less presumption that this FREE VACATION (aka 'paid leave') is some sort of 'punishment' for her for holding a political opinion on abortion that is contrary to that of the administrators.

    Do you people even SEE how insanely knee-jerk reactionary y'all are? Or is the lack of that sort of introspection part of the disease of libertarianism?

    And frankly, WHO CARES what the school administrators 'allow' or 'don't allow'? Many school administrators didn't 'allow' protests, but there were protests nontheless, because the kids aren't lemmings like House Republicans, and part of the POINT of civil disobedience is to disobey.

  • vek||

    WOW. You sure are an idiot. You can't figure out it's bad if schools push a particular political agenda? Would you be saying the same thing if/when it comes back into vogue to be hardcore right wing? This seems to be happening in many circles now, so will you just brush that off too?

    Why don't YOU try some introspection.

  • SutureSelf||

    Put on leave with no due process.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    This whole topic is bullshit.

  • Johnimo||

    Oh, the humanity!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online